Does God's Law Allow Nations to Regulate Immigration?

A friend asked for my take on this debate and the topic it addressed: whether biblical law allowed for regulation of immigration. This was my quick response. I didn't take the time in this response to add all my Scripture proofs, but I go into all these topics in much more detail in the book I'm currently working on, God's Blueprints for Government.

Hi, X. I just listened to the video at https://youtu.be/YzKf7MvwIvA . Both Luke and Alan made good points. And both of them missed some points. I agree with Luke that the primary means by which to protect a country against being taken over is to have biblical law enforced after a crime has occurred. But I agree with Alan that the law of God itself allowed for keeping out certain types of aliens. The debate could have been better if more terms had been defined.

Different types of alien or foreigner

One critical point in this discussion is to realize that "foreigners" or "aliens" is not one category in Scripture with one set of laws regulating it — the Bible clearly distinguishes between four different kinds of alien (see the chart below). To confuse those four types would bring some Scriptures into contradiction with each other. For instance, the "alien who is within your gates" (Deut. 14:21), was a גֵּר (Ger) — an integrated, protected, permanent resident — not a נֵכָר (Nekar) — enemy foreigner who embraced a false religion.

The Four Types of Foreigner

A גֵּר (Ger) was a permanent resident who was (at a minimum) willing to abide by God’s laws, and often also believed in the true God, but had not been circumcised or gone through the full Jewish conversion process. Free Ger who fully converted "became Jews" (Esth. 8:17) and were full citizens and no longer Ger. What is the primary difference between citizens and Ger? The Hebrew and Greek words for the citizens of a state are אֱוִיל, עמיתו, עֲמִיתֶֽךָ, רֵעַ, and πολιτῶν (with citizenship itself being πολιτείαν). The root of these words indicates that citizens had a role in the state — especially for the selection of civil rulers (Deut. 16:18-20). A citizen is ruled over, but he also has rights and responsibilities to the state. Before Nekar foreigners could become citizens in Israel, they had to commit themselves to Israel's God and culture. For example, Isaiah 56:3-8 describes "the sons of the [Nekar] foreigner" (vv. 3,6) who no longer wanted to be "separated" from Israel (v. 3,6) or remain as "outcasts" (v. 8). They were required to "bind themselves to the Lord" (v. 6) by covenant (vv. 3-8), and to "observe the Sabbath (v. 6).

A תּוֹשָׁב (Toshav) was a temporary sojourner for whom God took compassion and included charity in the law, but may or may not have been a believer.

A זָר (Zar) was a stranger, usually a person from a different country, a different religion, and who had not promised to abide by the cultural laws of the country, though on rare occasions a Jew from another Israelite tribe who was not known could be called a Zar. The term was neutral in respect to how strange he was.

A נֵכָר (Nekar) was an enemy foreigner committed to a religious culture hostile to the Bible. More on this in a moment.

Ruth was truly a Ger, not a Nekar, though in her humility she called herself a Nekar (Ruth 2:10). Both Zarim and Nakrim were strangers, but the Nakar-stranger was more distant and more distrusted. Israelites were allowed to charge interest to the Nakrim strangers, but were not allowed to charge interest to the other three categories.

Luke is correct that there were foreigners allowed in the land, but he failed to adequately deal with Alan's mention of Nehemiah's separation from foreigners (Neh. 9:2,3; Ezra 10:11). Of course, Alan failed to make the important distinctions I have made above between types of foreigners too and thus broadened the scope of who could be kept out too broadly. Luke's answer to Alan was that the command to separate from foreigners that is mentioned in Nehemiah and Ezra was just a "one-off" situation and didn't apply to today. I disagree. If what Ezra and Nehemiah did was lawful (and the text indicates it was) then it had to be based on the law. And the law it was based on is Exodus 23:33, which says, "They [the former inhabitants of the land] shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you." Israel was to be at perpetual war against any נֵכָר (Nekar) aliens who remained in the land — simply because they were נֵכָר (Nekar) aliens. To do otherwise would destroy the religious mono-culturalism (not racial mono-culturalism) of Israel. There were multiple races in Israel who had every right of Jews (for example, Pelethites, Cherethites, Gibeonites, Ruth, Uriah, etc., etc.), but they did not bring their religion or its culture with them. Obviously a נֵכָר (Nekar) alien could reject his religion (like Rahab and Uriah the Hittite did, and like the Cherethites and Pelethites did), but the Bible is clear that such a  נֵכָר (Nekar) alien was no longer a נֵכָר (Nekar) alien at that point but was treated from that time on as a גֵּר (Ger) — a fully integrated and protected permanent resident (and, if he/she fully became a Jew, potentially a citizen, in which case no longer considered a foreigner at all.)

So what would be the kind of נֵכָר (Nekar) alien that would be excluded from Israel? It would be anyone who was unwilling to abide by Israel's religious culture and who was still committed to a religious culture hostile to the Bible. Modern examples would be the well-known gangs streaming over the American border whose gang membership initiation rituals involve murder and occult ceremonies and who are committed to other death-penalty crimes. No one needs to interview a person who bears the tattoos of the Tren de Aragua gang, the Barrio Azteca gang, the La Línea gang, or the Mara Salvatrucha gang (otherwise known as MS-13) to know without any shadow of a doubt that they should be excluded from America (and would have been excluded from Israel if they lived back then). Their very gang membership initiation rites require the death penalty. For example, the motto of the last gang is "Mata, roba, viola, controla" (or kill, steal, rape, control). It is demonic to the core. Luke would let them come into the country and only after their next murder, rape, occult ceremony, etc. would he put them to death. But the Bible would treat them as Canaanites who "shall not dwell in your land" (Ex. 23:33; cf. Neh. 9:2,3; Ezra 10:11). I won't get into whether deportation of such types instead of the death penalty violates biblical death penalty laws, as my book on the death penalty gets into that.

But here are more definitions that are needed for this debate:

State

One topic that came up in the debate was cities (like Jerusalem) having the right to exclude people. Cities, as politically-organized bodies of people occupying a definite territory, are one manifestation of state, and were governed by the same laws as the nation. If immigration into the city could be somewhat controlled, so could a nation. Alan did a good job of showing biblical precedent for exclusion from Jerusalem, though Luke didn't see that as relevant to the nation as a whole. The discussion showed confusion on the definition of state.

Here is my definition:

"A biblically defined state is a God-given institution with a clearly defined jurisdiction and with limited authority and power that was to be exercised on behalf of citizens, permanent residents, and visitors by a variety of civic rulers and administrators whose purpose is to serve God by defending a biblical culture from unlawful attack, by upholding biblical justice in cases brought to its courts, by inflicting biblical penalties on biblically defined crimes (such as restitution, beatings, and capital punishment), by ensuring just weights and measures, by building the main artery highways that connect the main parts of a country together and that enable trade with other countries, maintaining these highways, protecting access to this free travel, and by defending the borders of the geographical area for which it is responsible." In contrast, Luke says that the purpose of a state is only to avenge crimes. My upcoming book will give extensive Scripture proof for each phrase in that definition.

State versus Nation

The racism within some forms of Christian Nationalism is very troubling. Part of it is because they confuse country/state with nation. Neither Luke nor Alan embrace these forms of Christian Nationalism, but both Luke and Alan used the term "nation" as a synonym for "country" or "state." That is problematic, as I will show below.

The biblical definition of a nation is a people-group (גּוֹי or עַם) that for the most part has a common ancestry (Gen. 10:15,20,31,32; 12:2), a common language (Gen. 10:20), similar looks (Isa. 18:7), similar cultural patterns (2 Kings 17:33; 21:2), and a sense of bonding to the group (Luke 7:5).

It is critically important to distinguish the state from the nation. Though a biblical state will have one law as given by the one true God, and though this one law will produce a type of mono-culturalism (one religion with its cultural outworkings), it does not preclude people from other nationalities from being citizens if they embrace the worldview and laws of the biblical state (as can be seen in Old Testament Israel, where people from other national backgrounds were allowed to be citizens if they embraced God, were circumcised, and submitted to God's law). Israel clearly distinguished between national background and the state. This is a critical distinction in opposing racism, and the unbiblical identity politics of both left and right today.

Of course, it must be admitted that the differences between a nation and a state are not immediately obvious since there have been times when both nations and states have had common borders, a common language, and a common ethnic makeup. These similarities have made some authors believe that nation and state are synonyms. Yet many scholars recognize the presence of stateless nations like the Kurds, Tamils, Yoruba people, Oromo people, and many others. These are referred to as "fourth-world nations." The word "stateless" implies that the people group would like to have their own independent state, but cannot. Members of stateless nations can be citizens of the country they dwell in or may be denied citizenship. Some nations are dispersed across more than one state, while others form provinces within a state. Some formerly stateless nations have become states. Switzerland is a state with parts of the German, French, and Italian nations.

Like Abraham, one ancestor can be the "father of many nations" (Gen. 17:4; cf. Gen. 25:23) but each of those nations will tend to have a common ancestry (apart from the occasional intermarriage or adoption of individuals). Genesis 11 shows a situation where everyone had the same language, culture, and sense of belonging to "one people" ("עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙" in Gen. 11:6). This unitary people-group was also intent on becoming a one-world nation-state (Gen. 11:1-6), which God thought would be a great evil (v. 6), and therefore he scattered them by dividing them into numerous languages (vv. 6-9). Those who could understand each other tended to bond together as quite distinct nations/people groups. Genesis 10:20 seems to indicate that God gave the languages at the clan level. Genesis 10:5 says that clans (מִשְׁפָּחָה) eventually became nations (גּוֹי) and these nations eventually became nation-states (מַמְלָכָה in Gen. 10:10ff). Genesis 10:1-32 and 11:10-32 shows that this was the origin of the many nation-states where people spoke, looked, and acted alike. Israel as a nation became subject to the state of Egypt in Genesis 46-50, but maintained their national identity. They gained their independence as a nation in Exodus 1-16, but only became a state (מַמְלֶ֥כֶת – Ex. 19:6) after God had established civic rulers (Ex. 16:22; 17:5,9ff with Numb. 1:1-54; 7:2ff; 10:4; 13:3) and synagogue rulers (Ex. 18; Numb. 11:16,24,25). 

In any case, if my definition of nation is the true definition of a nation, then it is obvious that there is a distinction between a nation and a state. God guaranteed that Israel would continue to exist as a nation/גּוֹי for as long as the sun, moon, and stars would exist (Jer. 31:36). For most of the past 2000 years they did not exist as a state, but they did exist as a nation (as defined above). Babylon was a kingdom/state/empire that contained many nations (Dan. 3:29).

On the other hand, various kingdoms/states can arise out of one nation. As Daniel 8:22 prophesies, "four kingdoms (מַלְכוּת) shall arise out of that nation (גּוֹי), but not with its power." In Jeremiah 18:7-9 God repeatedly speaks "concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom" as if they are distinct but related entities. Other Scriptures speak of the "kingdoms of the nations" (2 Chron. 12:8; 20:6; Is. 13:4) or in other ways distinguish between the two (1 Kings 18:10; 1 Chron. 16:20; 2 Chron. 32:15; Is. 60:12; Jer. 1:10; 10:7; 18:7,9; Ezek. 29:15; Matt. 24:7). As northern Israel mixed with other ethnicities, they became Samaritans and were considered a new nation ("Samaria") because of their cultural, religious, and language differences. But Ezekiel prophesied that those two nations and two kingdoms would once again become one nation state (Ezek. 37:22), a fact which was accomplished in the Maccabean period.

This indicates that a nation/people group does not have to have a pure ethnic lineage. Even Israel assimilated Gentiles so thoroughly into its religion and culture that they became part of the people group of the Jews, while other Gentiles like the Gibeonites maintained their identity as a separate nation (or people-group) within Israel. The history of the Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites shows that they too maintained their people-group status even though they had converted to the religion of Israel, were circumcised, and became an essential part of the state of Israel (2 Sam. 8:18; 20:23; 1 Chron. 18:17; etc.). You can be a member of a people group, but either a "citizen" (אֶזְרָח) or a non-citizen of a civic entity.

All of the above evidence shows that you can have a type of mono-culturalism without erasing ethnic status. There is no basis for accusing biblical civics of racism simply because the Bible requires all citizens to embrace the true religion, true biblical law, and commanded cultural practices.

When it comes to deporting criminals or hostiles, Luke really pressed their "right to remain silent" and not self-incriminate. But the gang members that I said should be ejected from our nation have not remained silent. They are self-professed gang members worthy of death. Banishment is merciful compared to mass execution (though either might be just - see my book on the flexibility and restorative nature of the death penalty). If gang members renounced their gang (in which case they would likely be executed by the gang), and they became Christians, sure, they could immigrate.

I agree with Luke that a self-confession is not enough to convict (Achan example). But the gang members that I talked about that are flowing into the country are proven criminals. 

Luke rightly affirmed that the solution (I would say the main solution) is enforcing biblical law. If you protect idolatry and celebrate blasphemy, it doesn't matter what kind of immigration laws you pass. But the kind of aliens that the Scripture commanded separation from were the נֵכָר (Nekar) kind of foreigners who were still committed to their idolatrous foreign culture. Keep in mind that if (as my book on the death penalty proves) the death penalty for some crimes was the maximum penalty rather than the mandated penalty, then Ezra and Nehemiah were not violating the law by expelling¹ these people rather than executing them.

Luke says that Nehemiah and Ezra's examples are not a precedent for us, and city is not the same as Israel. But 1) that automatically would mean that Nehemiah and Ezra violated God's laws. 2) Second, cities are indeed a form of state.

Luke admits that Nehemiah was documenting people, but says we can't apply that fact today because there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. But Nehemiah wasn't documenting the racial profile of people; he was documenting what kind of the four kinds of alien they were and whether they had renounced their religion. It had everything to do with religion and nothing to do with race. One change that I would note is that in New Covenant times there would not be a huge distinction between Jew and Ger, since both were supposed to abide by God’s laws. For example, Ezekiel 47:22 prophesies that the Ger “shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.” So it seems that the cross wiped out the distinction between believing Jew and believing Gentile in even the civil realm.

Luke asked why in the book of Judges Israel had 80 years of peace with no immigration laws? But he is assuming what needs to be proved — that Exodus 23:33, the repeated commands relative to the Canaanites in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Nehemiah, and Ezra's expulsion of them are not relevant to immigration laws. The Israelites certainly did not allow unconverted Canaanites entry, or else they violated God's direct command.

Luke said that Ruth and Naomi never had to report themselves when they came across the border. Even if this is true (which he didn't prove), it proves nothing since Ruth and Naomi believed in God. They were (or at least, Ruth was) the גֵּר (Ger) kind of immigrants.

Luke says that we are commanded to go into all the earth, which implies movement between countries. Of course. For most people we believe in free movement between countries. 

Luke made an error when he said that prior to 1882 the United States' immigration policies were similar to his. That is actually not true. While the immigration policies were much more generous, there were some ungodly ones. For example, the Naturalization Act of 1790 only allowed free white persons of "good character" to become citizens after two years of residency. This explicitly excluded non-white individuals and laid the foundation for racially discriminatory immigration policies. Likewise, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 allowed the federal government to deport non-citizens deemed dangerous and made it harder for immigrants to gain citizenship. But what is "dangerous"??? Granted, they were temporary and not part of a long-term immigration framework.

Anyway, both Luke and Alan were not that far apart. Both had some ambiguities in their arguments and both had some good points. I value the contributions of both.

Hopefully that is sufficient. Once my book on biblical civics comes out, I will give a ton more exegetical material.

Blessings.

Phil

1: The word בדל that is used for separating from the foreigners (Ezra 6:21; 9:1; 10:8,11; Neh. 9:2; 10:28; 13:3) has the meaning of distancing from, excluding from, and is even translated as "banned" in the ESV. For example, the ESV translates Ezra 10:8 as "and that if anyone did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all his property should be forfeited, and he himself banned from the congregation of the exiles." Also note the word "from" in Nehemiah 13:3 - "they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel." They were separated from the country of Israel. Obviously there were Nekar foreigners who (through their powerful leaders) tried to force their way in, but the emperor prohibited it. ↩

Want to read Dr. Kayser's draft chapter on Immigration, Ethnicity, Borders, Multiculturalism, and Racism from his upcoming book God's Blueprints for Government: A Framework for Biblical Civics? Enter your email address and we'll send it to you!

Don't have time to read the chapter but do want to know when the book is out? Sign up to get updates on the book here:

This book gives a practical framework for biblical civics, showing how God's blueprints for government apply to modern societies in detail — everything from banking and taxes to business, contract and copyright and patent law; communism, welfare, and care for the poor; crime and punishment; borders, ports, highways, immigration, and international relations; ecology and property rights; human rights; confession of Christ as Lord of the nation; multiculturalism; Satanism and pagan temples; sodomy, bestiality, and perversion; prostitution and pornography; medical crimes (abortion, infanticide, organ transplants, eugenics, euthanasia, sex change, etc.); public health; gun control; and much more.